The New Hampshire primary is the first in a series of nationwide political party primary elections held in the United States every four years (although the Iowa caucus is held earlier), as part of the process of choosing the Democratic and Republican nominees for the presidential elections to be held the subsequent November.
Although only a few delegates are chosen in the New Hampshire primary, its real importance comes from the massive media coverage it receives (along with Iowa, which holds the first caucuses); in recent years the two states received about as much media attention as all other state primaries combined[citation needed]. An example of this massive media coverage has been seen on the campus of Saint Anselm College, as the campus has held multiple national debates and have attracted media outlets like Fox News, CNN, NBC, and ABC. The publicity and momentum can be enormous from a decisive win by a frontrunner, or better-than-expected result in the New Hampshire primary. The upset or weak showing by a front-runner changes the calculus of national politics in a matter of hours, as happened in 1952 (D), 1968 (D), 1980 (R), and 2008 (D).
Since 1952, the primary has been a major testing ground for candidates for both the Republican and Democratic nominations. Candidates who do poorly frequently drop out, while lesser-known, underfunded candidates who do well in New Hampshire suddenly become serious contenders, garnering large amounts of media attention and campaign funding.
It is not a closed primary, in which votes can be cast in a party primary only by people registered with that party. Undeclared voters — those not registered with any party — can vote in either party primary. However, it does not meet a common definition of an open primary, because people registered as Republican or Democrat on voting day cannot cast ballots in the primary of the other party.[1
Ian wrote:Romney will win it by at least 10 points. In my humble opinion.
With any luck, Huntsman will take 2nd place away from Ron Paul.
I can't argue with you. But, then again, nobody picked Santorum either. And, the winner of Iowa doesn't necessarily win New Hampshire, or the nomination. Example: 2008 - winner of the Iowa caucuses was Huckabee. John McCain, the less religious, less "conservative" guy knocked it out of the park in New Hampshire.
Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-UT) listens as President Barack Obama nominates him to be US ambassador to China in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House May 16, 2009 in Washington DC. President Barack Obama nominated Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman Jr., as the American ambassador to China. *** Local Caption *** Barack Obama;Jon Huntsman
Santorum only did as well as he did in Iowa because of the timing of his stint as flavor of the week. I'd say not to look for it to continue, but they've run out of sufficiently batshit favors to get the critical FOX endorsement, so it might fall on him just by pure dumb luck.
The Boston Globe Endorses Huntsman
The Iowa caucuses haven’t changed The Boston Globe’s mind about Jon Huntsman. The newspaper announced its endorsement of the candidate Thursday, because of his “vision and national unity.” The editorial blasts the divisions within the Republican Party, saying that the candidates are fighting for meaningless titles like “true conservative.” The Globe says that Mitt Romney also stands out as “presidential,” but his cautious ways don’t stand up next to the “bold” Huntsman. Furthermore, Romney is working to please the most vocal constituencies but has limited personal experience. The bottom line of the editorial: though Romney will probably win the nomination, a Huntsman victory in New Hampshire could influence Romney—and make Mitt a better candidate.
Read it at The Boston Globe
January 5, 2012 8:24 PM
Coito ergo sum wrote:
If Huntsman can pull a Santorum,
Santorum is there to be wiped up after, AND NOTHING ELSE!
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P
The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
